Injustice Objection To Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the moral theory that states that “whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act”. Classical Utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism which holds that an act is morally good if the consequences produce the most utility overall. It is linked to consequentialism rather than deontology because it focusses on the consequences of an action rather than of the act itself. There are many objections to this moral philosophy, and in this essay I will argue that the “injustice” objection to Classical Utilitarianism cannot be met by the “Bite the Bullet” reply.
But first, what is the “injustice” objection to Classical Utilitarianism? The “injustice” objection states that Classical Utilitarianism has the potential for unjust acts to occur, because sometimes an unjust act can still be creating the most utility with its consequences. For example, in a scenario where two people are sick, and to save their lives, you could kill …show more content…
We cannot predict the future, so determining whether an unjust act will provide the most utility is unforeseeable, and therefore one cannot simply “bit the bullet”. Our moral intuitions are our guidelines, and we feel guilt and other negative emotions when committing an unjust act, which could be indicating that we are going against our human nature by doing such things. Classical Utilitarianism seems to be very progress orientated, focussing on the outcomes and the gaining of the most utility, rather than worrying about the morality of the act itself, and in this way it is good, but at the same time it will always be criticised, and the “injustice” objection and the “too demanding” objection have a strong case against this moral